Donald Trump questioned the interpretation of NATO’s Article 5, emphasizing its ambiguity and possible ambiguity
US President Donald Trump recently made a sensational statement in which he questioned the unambiguous interpretation of the key Article 5 of the NATO Collective Agreement, which guarantees military defense of any member of the Alliance in the event of an attack. This step caused a great resonance in international circles and called into question not only the US relations with NATO allies, but also the regulation of such important aspects of collective security. The statement was made during a small press conference on board the presidential plane Air Force One. Answering journalists' questions about Washington's readiness to defend Article 5, Trump noted that "there are many different definitions of Article 5" and that he is inclined to different interpretations of this article. “We have many ways of understanding it, and any of them could be right,” he said, adding, “I know many leaders of NATO countries with whom I have a special relationship, and my goal is to help them in any circumstances.” Trump said he would give a more specific answer at the NATO summit about his intentions regarding US commitments, but he was hesitant to do so on the plane, citing a desire to preserve the natural process of consultations. The statement raises questions about the consistency and certainty of US policy on Article 5, one of the most fundamental in the NATO system. Its wording implies that an attack on one member of the Alliance is automatically considered an attack on all, and countries are obliged to provide assistance in response. But now doubts have arisen about the extent to which Washington is willing to adhere to this principle without exceptions and with what limitations. Article 5 is the historical basis and foundation of NATO, which was originally created to protect Western Europe from the potential threat of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Despite the weakening of this threat, this clause remained an integral part of the treaty and still defines the format of the collective defense of the bloc. That is why Trump’s statements caused a wave of concern among allies, who had previously criticized Washington for the fact that the American military is obliged to participate in conflicts in Europe and at their expense. The background to this conflict is that Trump has previously repeatedly expressed indignation at the excessive dependence of allies on American defense spending, drawing attention to the fact that Europe should contribute more actively to common security, while financing the majority of defense spending. His previous accusations about the imbalance in NATO cooperation forced partners to carefully review their obligations and roles in the alliance. Thus, Trump’s unexpected words create new challenges for the functioning and unity of NATO. They require allies to rethink their roles and, perhaps, will prompt a revision of internal agreements on collective defense. Such rhetoric could potentially weaken the Alliance’s integrity and question the sustainability of its principles given the unpredictability of U.S. foreign policy. It remains unclear how—if at all—the White House will clarify its position on Article 5 in the future, and how this statement will affect the further work of strengthening collective security in the Euro-Atlantic region.